Horticulture and Soil Science Wiki:Scientific Standard
H&SS's focus is horticulture and soil science. The fields of horticulture and soil science incorporates aspects from other fields such as biology, botany, chemistry, physics, geology, entomology, nutritional science, genetics, and ecology (just to name a few). Just like every scientist is held to a high standard, so, too, will H&SS editors be held to a high standard. Editors are expected to make sure that all sources are reliable and mainstream. Because not every editor will have an academic background, it is important to highlight what the scientific standard is for H&SS. What is Science? Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. Since H&SS is an wiki anyone can edit, editors need not have academic credentials or affiliations to participate in science-related articles. Editors should, however, adhere to the standard of verifiability expected in academic and science-related work, as put forth in the H&SS policies that relate to sourcing, such as neutrality, verifiability and prohibition of original research. Some degree of scientific literacy may be needed to understand sources that describe scientific observations and theories. The goal is for editors of all levels of education and expertise to collaborate in creating quality articles that reach the widest possible audience. Perspectives H&SS does not endorse a single perspective on the metaphysical basis of science. In the philosophy of science, there is a wide range of perspectives. An empiricist contends that because natural science endeavors to be objective and unbiased, natural science has no point of view; or if it does, it is exactly a neutral point of view, while a dogmatist contend that science is biased because it holds itself as an authority over all other interpretations of life, such as religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations. Either way, H&SS seeks to have a neutral point of view, describing all viewpoints accurately, reliably, and in their proper proportion. Proper Weighting Within any scientific discipline, a body of peer reviewed articles define the range of theories being examined and evidence being found to support or undermine the theories. In nearly every area of science, there are areas of legitimate scientific disagreement as scientists examine and reinterpret evidence in light of one theory or another. As peer reviewed articles in indexed journals are always a reliable, attributed source of vetted viewpoints, a neutral point of view policy allows these competing conclusions to exist on the same page. The weight given to each view should be proportional to the published articles in high-impact journals on a subject supporting each view. H&SS articles should also give extra weight to more recent literature and the citations from the recent literature, when it is evident that the weight of recent academic research has largely shifted away from a view commonly held, say, 50 years ago. For example, at one time there were academic papers published supporting a steady state theory of the universe, whereas in recent decades this has been supplanted by a big bang theory. So, an article about the origins of the universe should be based primarily in the recent literature. By taking into account also the citations from the recent literature, older original articles about the Big Bang will not be ignored. H&SS editors must avoid edit warring over arguments about whether one point of view or the other is the "accepted" or "mainstream" view. When dealing with scientific issues, let the published literature itself shape the weight of the article and respect the contributions of other editors. Similarly, editors should avoid turning arguments over weight into an excuse for conflict. There is no exacting definition of proper weight that can determine precisely how much evidence for one view or another should be allowed into an article. One cannot reasonably expect editors to compile, or trust the claim of other editors that they have compiled an exact count of articles on all views, multiplied by impact factor of the journals in which they are published, divided by the average age of the articles to determine the appropriate percentage of the article to be allowed to each point of view. The issue of giving due weight to viewpoints should first be understood to be more of a guideline than a hard policy, precisely because it cannot be exactly defined. Secondly, the more controversial the article's subject, the less likely there is going to be a unanimity of opinion even among experts. And even if the most experts agree, but a minority of experts have a large public following, clearly a large number of readers may be mostly interested in learning the views of "their experts" and there is nothing wrong with that, and it is in fact an opportunity to provide readers with more evidence from all perspectives. H&SS is not bound by limits of space that limit published encyclopedia articles. Rather than waste time on edit wars over "proper weight", the Project is more rapidly advanced by collaborative editing with a spirit of generosity and openness to seeing as much material presented as possible. If you feel one point of view is being represented by too many citations, the solution is to do your research to see if there are other peer reviewed sources representing your preferred point of view that have not been included. Seek to bring balance to the article by adding material, not deleting it. In this way you will help to create a more comprehensive article and more complete bibliography which will be useful to readers who come to H&SS looking for information and a good start on resources they can study on their own. If a source is misrepresented, delete the misrepresentation or add material from the same source that better represents the source in a balanced fashion. If a resource is redundant, consider if it is possible to add the citation to a section where the findings of similar studies are already reported and at least try to keep the citation...as this shows some respect for the contributing editor's contribution of the citation. Consensus Assertions of a scientific consensus require reliable sourcing. It should be acknowledged when there are consensus statements from scientific bodies such as the American Horticultural Society or the Botanical Society of America. More commonly scientific consensus takes the form of agreement between multiple independent secondary and tertiary sources, such as specialized texts and textbooks. The existence of consensus is the most common state of established science, established science generally does not have two or more legitimate scientific "sides" within the scientific community. Articles should simply state the consensus view as science. The articles should not elevate minor positions to artificially create counter balance. When sources demonstrate legitimate scientific disagreement then the disagreement will usually be discussed in the literature from both sides of the disagreement. In situations where the proponents of the conflict are relatively equal in proportion, no claim of consensus should be made. The article should describe the subject acknowledging the scientific disagreement. Pseudoscience See: Pseudoscience Politicization The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It can occur when cultural or political views of scientists or groups of scientists influence their interpretations of scientific findings or their formulation of theories to explain or discount a body of evidence. And it can also occur when government, business, or interest groups exert legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. H&SS is not a soapbox for pushing political agendas through selective presentation of scientific research. Further, while H&SS does describe disputes between notable authorities published in reliable sources, H&SS does not engage in disputes. Bias should not be introduced by politically biased selection of research presented, or by the way in which it is presented or synthesized. The presentation of science in politically-charged H&SS articles should be such that the most reliable and best summary of the available observations, data, and theories is presented without editorializing. On the other hand, the best way to counteract a perceived bias (the introduction of material from a reliable peer reviewed article) is not to delete the reference but to (1) ensure that the reference is properly described and (2) add material from other peer reviewed sources of equal or greater merit which offset the viewpoint of the "biasing" article. Scientific Sources The treatment of scientific sources is very important to finding what is established mainstream science. Since H&SS is open to everyone (and not all editors are familiar with scientific citation) it is important to explicitly describe the value of potential scientific sources. The list below is a description of how modern sources are considered. Historic contexts are not considered in this list, for example a "specialized text" was historically a common and accepted avenue for the presentation of original research. In the present day all original scientific research is expected to be initially presented in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-reviewed primary publication: In 1968 the Council of Biology Editors Newsletter proposed this definition: An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure containing sufficient information to enable peers (1) to assess observations, (2) to repeat experiments, and (3) to evaluate intellectual processes; moreover, it must be susceptible to sensory perception, essentially permanent, available to the scientific community without restriction, and available for regular screening by one or more of the major recognized secondary services (e.g., currently, Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Index Medicus, Excerpta Medica, Bibliography of Agriculture, etc., in the United States and similar facilities in other countries). Such a publication indicates the author(s)', usually trained specialists, belief and support for the presented "work". Furthermore an established editor believed the "work" warranted consideration by the scientific community. This decision is made after considering reviews from two or more established researchers in the pertinent scientific field and requesting necessary revisions from the author(s). Accepted Sources (include but not limited to) *'Peer-reviewed review article': Review articles are not primary sources of information. This is usually the first summation of active science put together by well established specialists and their associates. Review articles are often very technical and contain detailed inline citation to primary work. This work is usually the first "artifact" of a scientific consensus. *'Specialized text': Similar to a review article the specialized text is usually longer and has a slightly lower density of inline references. Also written by a specialist, such "works" are usually reviewed and edited by other specialists. These "works" are often used as texts in higher level courses and as general references by other specialists. While small portions of these texts might deal with controversial science and other portions may quickly become outdated they are usually a fair representation of scientific consensus. *'Mainstream textbooks': Their intended use is to present a general overview of a field to those not yet trained in the field. Textbooks rarely contain inline citation to primary articles however they may provide references to significant works at the ends of chapters. General textbooks are useful as a starting point for finding general ideas regarding well established mainstream science. Nonetheless, caution is advised because general, introductory texts are not necessarily written by experts in the field at hand. As such they may include erroneous or outdated material, and should be cross-checked against more rigorous sources. *'Oral and poster presentation': These are often the preliminary and incomplete reports of findings; they are not usually subject to peer review. The more formal and complete peer-reviewed articles intended to reach a wider audience are considered the first official presentations of original research. Unless the poster or a transcript is published, an abstract for these events demonstrates no more than there was an intended presentation on the subject. *'Patent': By a patent's very nature it does not contain well established science. The science in patents should be treated extremely skeptically because neither the description of, nor the evidence for, a patent must meet the standards of a peer-reviewed journal. Patents must instead meet legal standards that place a higher priority on the patentee's capacity to own a technology than they do on the soundness of the scientific observations. Patents often precede peer-reviewed articles for legal reasons but the peer-reviewed article is still considered the first official presentation of original research to the scientific community. *'Scientific third-party report': On the other hand, third-party writing that appears in technical publications are valuable for establishing the context and impact of another work, and can be expected to contain accurate science as well. Articles of this type include "Perspectives" and "News and Views" pieces which appear in scientific journals like Science and Nature, as well as newsmagazines published by scientific societies such as Chemical & Engineering News. Unacceptable Sources (include but not limited to) *'Institute journal': There are a variety of non-peer-reviewed journals published by think tanks, research institutes, and similar organizations. These sources are intended to appear as objective scientific publications. However, the articles from these journals are not the same as peer-reviewed sources. These sources often represent the POV of the commercial, political, or religious "entity(s)" that fund the publication and should be treated as such. *'Popular media third-party report': Newspaper articles and television reports are generally considered poor sources for scientific fact and information. However, popular media can be expected to reliably quote individuals (though important context may be omitted). There are many assertions that aren't dealt with in mainstream peer-reviewed publications. For example accusations of pseudoscience or censorship can not be made in a peer-reviewed publication. This makes popular media one of the few open channels for such commentary and as a result it should be taken seriously. *'Popular media self-documentation': Self-documentation is currently not the expected or approved format for the presentation of original research. In modern science this format should be regarded as little better than self-publication when dealing with original research. As a source of established science these "works" can be considered similar to a textbook if the author is an authority on the subject. *'Self-publication/press conference': Must not be used as evidence of anything but the authors/presenter's opinion. Such works are considered to be well outside the mainstream scientific community but are appropriate sources for clarifying the opinions of a notable person in a field. Here, notable means that the person is recognized as an expert by his or her peers as demonstrated by more than one peer reviewed journal article on the subject. Self published opinions of anyone below this level of notability should be deleted. Controversial Topics A controversy related to science need not imply an actual controversy within science. There may be an established consensus in science and the controversy is really occurring outside science. There are three broad types of situations that may arise in such cases: 1. Uncontroversial topics; typical standard subjects on which there is broad, undisputed agreement. 2. Non-scientific controversies; uncontroversial subjects within the scientific community that are nevertheless controversial outside it (e.g. evolution, global warming and ADHD). 3. Scientific controversies; controversial subjects within the scientific community, e.g. Bohr-Einstein debates. On scientific topics, H&SS weighs published academic discussion in scientific journals more heavily than discussions occurring outside the scientific community. Non-scientific controversy Topics that are controversial only outside the scientific community are distinguished by the trait that the prevailing sources on the topic do not acknowledge alternative perspectives within the scientific community. In such cases, those offering alternative examples may feel discriminated against and might wish to rectify the situation by presenting their "side" of the story in H&SS. H&SS is not an appropriate venue for this. The marginalization and ignoring of minority opinions about observable reality that occurs within the academic communities that use the scientific method should be reflected in H&SS. In articles devoted to subjects which are at the fringes of legitimate research or even clearly outside it, the conventional understanding associated with the novel idea should be discussed and framed as such. Articles should not adopt an "in-universe" treatment of such a topic (a treatment from the fringe or non-scientific perspective); nor should the proponents of such topics be given a venue to promote their proposals. H&SS should describe an idea only if it has received notice by third parties, and the descriptions should be dispassionate and acknowledge the marginalization of the idea. Scientific controversy For truly scientific controversial topics, there must be acknowledgment in reliable sources that a controversy exists. This means that both sides of the argument must acknowledge that the other side exists in the venues appropriate to the scientific community. A small number of primary sources, even when published in respected peer-reviewed journals, does not indicate a legitimate controversy if others in the community have not noticed or commented on them. Critical review is the key indicator of significant controversy. When one side of the putative controversy alleges that a controversy exists while the other side (as well as any expected third-party observers) essentially ignores the papers and other allegations of those asserting the controversy, there is no way to source the existence of a real controversy without engaging in non-neutral original research. Therefore, H&SS should not report the existence of such a claimed controversy. In particular, any extraordinary claim that purports to revolutionize a field must be acknowledged by professional experts in the field before H&SS reports on its existence in articles devoted to that field. Scientific Evidence in Non-scientific Topics Articles which are not about a scientific topic, such as those concerned with religious, spiritual, or philosophical ideas, are properly written plainly without argumentative rejoinders or caveats. Only if the article happens upon a subject which is unequivocally subject to scientific evidence should such evidence be presented. This should be done in a way that does not detract from the primary significance of the subject. For example, an article on the Garden of Eden discusses its role in religious thought of the various relevant traditions, not the scientific likelihood of every event that is associated with the Garden. In the related article on the Tree of Knowledge, the scientific issues surrounding this article of faith should be presented dispassionately without any hint of editorial bias toward or against any particular view. Great care must be taken to present fairly the complete range of relevant scientific evidence, including opinions of scientists who may or may not share the religious or philosophical presumptions central to the subject. H&SS articles are not battlegrounds. The reader must be left with a knowledge of all significant perspectives on a subject, and information to pursue them further. H&SS does not advocate any particular perspective over any other. Category:Policies